Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CLARK AND WADE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4001232 · 1 · MINNESOTA CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:51 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (2deb1d7) — every figure regenerates from this named code version and data image.
Where it sits
Location as DWR records it. Faint dots are the neighbouring water; click any to open it.
Which of its rights are out of priority?
Not computable for this structure: this structure is not on the modelled flow network, so no reference gage can honestly stand in for it.
Where it sits in line
Priority 1883-05-05 — 50th most senior of the 4661 structures with decreed rights in this water districtDWR's administrative subdivision of a river basin; the unit calls are usually stated in..
Under prior appropriationColorado's rule for sharing water: first in time, first in right. Age decides, not proximity or need., everything ahead of it in this line is satisfied in full before it receives any water. Immediately ahead: TURNER DITCH (1883-05-05). Immediately behind: ORCHARD RANCH DITCH (1883-05-09).
Decreed rights (3)
| Admin noDWR's numeric encoding of a water right's seniority. Smaller is more senior; the integer part counts days from 1849-12-31 to the date that ranks the right. | AppropriatedWhen water was first put to beneficial use. It sets seniority unless a prior adjudication date is later. | AdjudicatedWhen the water court confirmed the right. A use decreed in 1975 was not a decreed use in 1955, however old the appropriation is. | AbsoluteA right actually put to use, as opposed to conditional -- a placeholder for a use not yet made. | ConditionalA right reserving a place in line for a use not yet made; it must be diligently pursued or it lapses. | Units | UsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on. | Case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12178.0 | 1883-05-05 | 1889-06-17 | 0.22 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1, 2 |
| 21263.20209 | 1905-05-01 | 1914-06-23 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | A80 |
| 51134.18993 | 1902-01-01 | 1990-12-31 | 0.25 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK |
Legal record & documents
24 decreed actions on record across
7 court cases:
90CW0113, CA0617, CA0886, CA0228, CA0567, CA0038, 75CW0048.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
90CW0113 | 1 | 1990-12-31 | S |
CA0617 | 1 | 1914-06-23 | S |
CA0886 | 15 | 1901-04-12 | O, S |
CA0228 | 2 | 1901-04-12 | S |
CA0567 | 2 | 1889-06-17 | O |
CA0038 | 2 | 1889-06-17 | O |
75CW0048 | 1 | 1889-06-17 | O |
DWR's own records for this structure: net amounts · transactions & adjudication history · scanned decrees (search a case number there for the imaged document). On this site: the district's full legal picture →
Recorded use (last 15 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 71 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 49 AF — 69% of that, and 4th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
| Year | Diverted (AFA volume: one acre covered a foot deep, about 326,000 gallons -- roughly a suburban household's outdoor use for a year.) | Compared with its own record | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 241 | 15th lowest of 15 · 339% of median | 171 | 1.2 |
| 2011 | 41 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 139 | 0.7 |
| 2012 | 65 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 171 | 0.3 |
| 2013 | 87 | 11th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 148 | 0.3 |
| 2014 | 71 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 163 | 0.4 |
| 2015 | 83 | 9th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 142 | 0.5 |
| 2016 | 112 | 13th lowest of 15 · 158% of median | 166 | 0.5 |
| 2017 | 115 | 14th lowest of 15 · 162% of median | 130 | 1.0 |
| 2018 | 86 | 10th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 140 | 0.5 |
| 2019 | 56 | 5th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 109 | 1.0 |
| 2020 | 105 | 12th lowest of 15 · 148% of median | 180 | 1.0 |
| 2021 | 5 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 7% of median | 40 | 0.1 |
| 2022 | 60 | 6th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 61 | 1.0 |
| 2023 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 5 | 0.0 |
| 2024 | 49 | 4th lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 100 | 0.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 15 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (8/10 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not.
The rubric, component by component
| Check | State | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| identity | complete | name, type, and water source all on file |
| decreed rights | on file | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 7882 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 68% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2024 carry measured days |
| published-record stability | stable | no upstream revisions recorded against this structure |
Advisory reading aid on public data — not an administrative or legal conclusion, not a title opinion, and not a substitute for DWR administration or an engineer's analysis. Methodology review status is disclosed at hydrohistorian's basin pages.